Faculty Bibliography

Cardiovascular disease, and in particular coronary artery disease (CAD), remains an important contributor of morbidity and mortality among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Classic symptomatology of CAD and effectiveness of established therapeutic measures is less frequent in patients with CKD. This suggests unique characteristics of CAD among patients with CKD. Two important features of CAD in CKD include increased calcific density of atherosclerotic plaques and of the vessels themselves (coronary artery calcification -- CAC), as well as a decrease in microcirculatory function -- or coronary microcirculatory dysfunction. A multitude of pathophysiologic pathways have been identified that contribute to CAC in CKD; less is known about the pathophysiology of microcirculatory dysfunction. It is not well established if these two processes are directly related to each other, but the combination results in a greater severity of effect on overall myocardial function and may in part explain the greater preponderance of silent myocardial infarction. Further investigation is needed to better understand these unique aspects of CAD in CKD as well as the role they play in overall CVD in this group, and ultimately therapeutics that may lessen the burden of disease.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We aimed to evaluate whether paclitaxel eluting devices increased the risk of death in patients undergoing revascularization for infrainguinal peripheral artery disease using network meta-analyses. METHODS:PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through April 2020 for randomized trials in patients with infrainguinal peripheral artery disease who underwent revascularization with or without a paclitaxel eluting device (balloon/stent). Short-term mortality defined as death at 6-12 months, and long-term mortality defined as death at >12 months after revascularization. RESULTS:Our search identified 57 eligible randomized controlled studies enrolling a total of 9,362 patients comparing seven revascularization strategies (balloon angioplasty vs. bare metal stent vs. covered stent vs. paclitaxel eluting stent vs. other drug eluting stent vs. paclitaxel-coated balloon vs. bypass surgery). Overall, paclitaxel eluting stent and paclitaxel-coated balloons did not increase short-term mortality (e.g., vs. balloon angioplasty: paclitaxel-coated balloon OR [95% CI] 1.21 [0.88-1.66], p = .24; paclitaxel eluting stent OR [95%CI] 1.01 [0.63-1.63], p = .97, respectively). In addition, paclitaxel eluting stent did not show significant increase in long-term mortality (e.g., vs. balloon angioplasty: OR [95%CI] 1.06 [0.70-1.59], p = .79). However, paclitaxel-coated balloon showed significant increase in long-term mortality compared to balloon angioplasty and bypass (vs. balloon angioplasty: OR [95% CI] 1.48 [1.06-2.07], p = .021; vs. bypass: OR [95%CI] 1.73 [1.05-2.84], p = .031, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:In this meta-analysis of randomized trials, there was no significant increase in mortality with paclitaxel eluting stent, but there was increased risk of long-term mortality in paclitaxel-coated balloon for the treatment of infrainguinal peripheral artery disease.

BACKGROUND:inhibitor after a short course of DAPT is actively debated. METHODS:inhibitor monotherapy (P2Y12i group) after short-term DAPT. RESULTS:Our search identified 17 eligible trials enrolling a total of 54,625 patients comparing different DAPT duration. Either of the 2 monotherapy groups did not increase the risk of ischemic outcomes when compared with the long-term DAPT group, without difference between the Aspirin versus the P2Y12i groups. However, both monotherapy groups significantly reduced bleeding when compared with long-term DAPT (Aspirin group: hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.62 [0.45-0.86], P=.004 and P2Y12i group: 0.68 [0.50-0.93], P=.015). There was no difference in bleeding between the Aspirin versus P2Y12i groups (hazard ratio=0.91 [0.58-1.43], P=.70). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients undergoing PCI, short-term DAPT with continuation of either aspirin or P2Y12i reduced bleeding without increasing ischemic outcomes when compared with long-term DAPT. The choice of antiplatelet therapy after short-term DAPT should be evaluated in well-powered trials.

Background: For patients with atrial fibrillation who are at high risk for bleeding or who cannot tolerate oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage (LAA) closure represents an alternative therapy for reducing risk for thromboembolic events. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of the Amplatzer and Watchman^TM LAA closure devices. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed of studies comparing the safety and efficacy outcomes of the two devices. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise study quality. Results: Six studies encompassing 614 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall event rates were low for both devices. No significant differences between the devices were found in safety outcomes (i.e., pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, device embolization, air embolism, and vascular complications) or in the rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, or device-related thrombosis. The total bleeding rate was significantly lower in the Watchman^TM group (Log OR = -0.90; 95% CI = -1.76 to -0.04; p = 0.04), yet no significant differences was found when the bleeding rate was categorized into major and minor bleeding. Total peridevice leakage rate and insignificant peridevice leakage rate were significantly higher in the Watchman^TM group (Log OR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.87; p < 0.01 and Log OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.50 to 1.72; p < 0.01, respectively). However, significant peridevice leakages were similar in both the devices. Conclusions: The LAA closure devices had low complication rates and low event rates. Efficacy and safety were similar between the systems, except for a higher percentage of insignificant peridevice leakages in the Watchman^TM group. A randomized controlled trial comparing both devices is underway, which may provide more insight on the safety and efficacy outcomes comparison of the devices.

We aimed to investigate long-term (≥5 years) outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) using a meta-analysis from updated published randomized trials. Our data showed that the risk of all-cause death as well as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke was similar between PCI and CABG, whereas PCI had significantly higher rates of repeat revascularization compared to CABG. Decisions for PCI versus CABG for LMCAD should be based on weighing the upfront morbidity and mortality risk of CABG with late risk of repeat revascularization with PCI and taking into consideration patient preference.

Background There are limited data to inform policy mandating primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) volume benchmarks for catheterization laboratories in low- and middle-income countries. Methods and Results This prospective state-wide registry included ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with symptoms of <12 hours, or with ongoing ischemia at 12 to 24 hours, reperfused with PPCI. From June 2013 to March 2016, we recruited 5560 consecutive patients. We categorized hospitals on the basis of annual PPCI volumes into low, medium, and high volume (<100, 100-199, and ≥200 PPCIs per year, respectively). Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models were used to examine the association between PPCI volume and 1-year mortality. Among 42 recruiting hospitals, there were 24 (57.2%) low-volume, 8 (19%) medium-volume, and 10 (23.8%) high-volume hospitals. The median (25th-75th percentile) TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction risk score was 3 (2-5). Cardiac arrest before admission occurred in 4.2%, 2.1%, and 2.9% of cases at low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals, respectively (P=0.02). Total ischemic time differed significantly among low-volume (median [25th-75th percentile], 3.5 [2.4-5.5] hours), medium-volume (median, 3.8 [25th-75th percentile, 2.58-6.05] hours), and high-volume hospitals (median, 4.16 [25th-75th percentile 2.8-6.3] hours) (P=0.01). Vascular access was radial in 61.5%, 71.3%, and 63.2% of cases at low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals, respectively (P=0.01). The observed 1-year mortality rate was 6.5%, 3.4%, and 8.6% at low-, medium- and high-volume hospitals, respectively (P<0.01), and the difference did not attenuate after multivariate adjustment (low versus medium: hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.80 [1.12-2.90]; high versus medium: hazard ratio [95% CI], 2.53 [1.78-3.58]) (P<0.01). Conclusions Low- and middle-income countries, like India, may have a nonlinear relationship between institutional PPCI volume and outcomes, partly driven by procedural variations and inequalities in access to care.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with high mortality. In the absence of data to support coronary revascularization beyond the infarct artery and selection of circulatory support devices or medications, clinical practice may vary substantially.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. It is still uncontrolled in most countries and no therapies are currently available. Various drugs are under investigation for its treatment. The disease is known to have worse outcomes in patients who have underlying cardiovascular disease. Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir and lopinavir/ritonavir are currently being studied in trials and show some promise. Conduction disorders, heart failure and mortality have been reported with the use of these drugs. It is important to have a knowledge of potential cardiotoxic effects of these drugs before using them for COVID-19 patients for better allocation of healthcare resources and improvement in clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND:There is concern about the potential of an increased risk related to medications that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), because the viral receptor is angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). METHODS:We assessed the relation between previous treatment with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, or thiazide diuretics and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on Covid-19 testing as well as the likelihood of severe illness (defined as intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or death) among patients who tested positive. Using Bayesian methods, we compared outcomes in patients who had been treated with these medications and in untreated patients, overall and in those with hypertension, after propensity-score matching for receipt of each medication class. A difference of at least 10 percentage points was prespecified as a substantial difference. RESULTS:Among 12,594 patients who were tested for Covid-19, a total of 5894 (46.8%) were positive; 1002 of these patients (17.0%) had severe illness. A history of hypertension was present in 4357 patients (34.6%), among whom 2573 (59.1%) had a positive test; 634 of these patients (24.6%) had severe illness. There was no association between any single medication class and an increased likelihood of a positive test. None of the medications examined was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of severe illness among patients who tested positive. CONCLUSIONS:We found no substantial increase in the likelihood of a positive test for Covid-19 or in the risk of severe Covid-19 among patients who tested positive in association with five common classes of antihypertensive medications.